Aristotle and John Stuart Mill on Happiness and Morality

Aristotle and John Stuart wedge on comfort and Morality In this paper I will argue that Aristotles conception of eudaemonia disproves hoagies utilitarian view that frolic is the greatest advantageously. The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotles and mill around views on the value of enjoyment and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotles deterrent example of eudaimonia. Then I will present tarrys utilitarian views on triumph and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mills utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian sit of eudaimonia.In this section I will explain Aristotles definition of eudaimonia and its relationship to happiness, morality and the virtues. Aristotle defines eudaimonia in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics as virtuous activity in unity with power and that this is the highest good for piece beings. For Aristotle, eudaimonia can be translated into a humane living of stentorian since it occurs end -to-end a somebodys life. This lifelong happiness is complete and sufficient in itself, meaning that a individual lives it as an end in itself and not for anything else beyond it.An important aspect of r for each wizing our hold eudaimonia is to function well as human beings. Aristotle presents his concept of the human function by stating that what makes human function so distinct is not just to obtain nutrition and to grow because that aspect of life is sh ard with plants and it is as well not perception because that is something sh atomic human body 18d with animals. Our ultimate human function therefore is motive and not just reason alone notwithstanding to act in accordance to reason. Achieving excellence in human rational activity according to Aristotle is synonymous with leading a moral life.To lead a moral life is a state in which a person chooses to act in accordance to the right virtues. Aristotle, defines virtue asa mean mingled with two extremes (excess and defici ency). He argues that the mean is not necessarily the average or half way point, but rather changes in relation to each individual. For example, a person who just finished carry on needs more water after jogging than a person who was not jogging, so the mean between in any case much water and overly little water is different for the jogger and non-jogger.harmonize to Aristotle, it is very difficult to discover the mean, to discover the exact point between the two extremes that is best suited for you. As he says, there argon many ways to be defame and only one way to be correct. Aristotle explains that the choice of the mean is going to depend on what the virtuous persons reasoning is. As in the case of the jogger, he will fox just enough water to quench his thirst (deficiency) but wont drink too much that would result in water in water intoxication (excess).Aristotle focuses his moral theory on virtuous action and argues that virtue is necessary, but not sufficient for happines s. You need virtue to lead a happy life, but finally, virtue alone will not make you happy. What matters most is that you make a habit expose of choosing to act in accordance with the right virtues, which leads to a balance in ones life and ultimately leads you closer and closer to achieving your own eudaimonia. In this next section I will present Mills utilitarian views and the link between happiness and morality and how his views do not coincide with Aristotles eudaimonistic ideals.In chapter two of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill introduces his concept of utility, also known as the superior Happiness Principle to hold that actions be right in proportion as they tend to bring up happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended joyousness, and the absence of bruise by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of enjoyment. In other words, Mill makes it certain that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as goals a nd all things that we do is desirable because they produce pleasure or go on pain.Mill understood that it would be demeaning to humans to reduce life to pleasures as this would then put us at the same level as animals. Thus, he introduces the idea of higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are those of a higher quality of that are determined by competent judges. This competent judge is someone who is acquainted with both(prenominal) the higher and lower quality pleasures. In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the expound of the greatest happiness principle stated above.Unlike Aristotle who puts emphasis on the divisor (the person themselves) in regards to playing morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the character of the person and their motives do not matter only the leaveoff of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest number of mass. As state bef ore, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is the rules and precepts for human conduct, nd not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesnt mean that relish should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality. Because of his views on morality Mill would not maintain with Aristotle that the wholly ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice. According to Mill a person could do the right thing, and act morally while also having the desire to do the wrong thing. To explain this, he gives the example of a rescuer who saves another person from drowning.He helps this person because it is morally right, regardless of being seen as a good Samaritan or if he wouldve been compensated for his actions. Mill would also disagree with Aristotles argument that it is determined whether or not someone led a eudaimonistic life only after this pe rson has died. Mill essentially believes in concrete happiness and believes that people should be happy while they are alive. Mill states that pleasures are get outs of our happiness and not an analysis means as Aristotle puts it.In this third section I will provide a counterargument to Mills utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia. I firstly disagree with Mills idea that happiness is equated with pursuing acts that only lead to pleasure and avoiding those that decrease pleasure. I side completely with Aristotle in that he believes that the purpose of pleasures is to serve as side product of activity to perfect our activities. For example, for a mathematician to become an excellent mathematician he moldiness become very talented in doing mathematical activities but also must have the pleasure in doing this activity.I also side with him on his statement in Book Ten of the Nicomachean Ethics certain pleasures such as those of touch can lead us to be come servile and brutish and says that it attaches to us not in so far as we are men but in so far as we are animals. For example those who eat fare to the excess have slavish characters because they are choosing to eat past their bodily intake limit. I agree here with Aristotle that those persons who are destitute of self-control do not use their reason, take pleasures exceedingly, in the wrong way and in the wrong objects.Ultimately, in order to act virtuously a person must act rationally in a manner that is between the two extremes of deficiency and excess when it comes to matters of pleasure. Thus, pleasure should not be sought just for its own sake. In terms of moral actions, Mill arguments also seem to be flawed. He believes that the goodness of an action is based on whether or not it produced pleasure and happiness for the greatest number of people. There is little emphasis on the disposition and character of the agent performing the action.This idea seems illogical because then everyone would be acting without reason and doing things for the wrong intentions. As Aristotle says in Book One of the Nicomachean ethics, the man who does not rejoice in noble actions is not good the good man judges well in matters of the good and the noble. Here he is referring to the fact that a person who is not performing actions for the right intentions is not a good man at all. To explain this gain ground I will use the example of the drowning person.Aristotle would advise that I should save a drowning person because I have the positive and noble intention to do so and not because someone is going to pay me for helping them. I think Mills view on happiness and morality that pleasures should equate with happiness sounds like it would be ideal to live this type of life. However, this type of logic would not work up out in todays society. He tells us that in order to find out what kinds of pleasures are most valuable we should look to competent judges who seem to just know what are attended the offend higher pleasures because they have experienced both the higher and lower pleasures.As Aristotle states, however, not all pleasures are public to all men because not everyone is directed to the same things. What if their idea of a higher pleasure is to itch women on the streets? The problem with Mills argument then is that what this competent judge may consider to be a higher pleasure may actually be a lower pleasure and be very wrong about what they consider to be right. Aristotle would respond to Mills statement that happiness should be concrete by stating that happiness in Mills view seems to just be a fleeting experience.For example, if a person spends their whole life trying to figure out a cure for cancer it wont be determined whether this persons life work was meaningful only until we examine this persons life work. To conclude, I have stated both Aristotles and Mills arguments in relation to happiness and morality. Aristotles conclude tha t happiness (eudaimonia) is to have flourishing life in which actions are performed in accordance to virtuousness and reason.Mill, on the hand believes that pleasure is ultimately the greatest type of good and therefore is equated with happiness. I have argued that Aristotles concept of eudaimonia disproves Mills greatest happiness priniciple on the grounds that pleasure is only a small part of happiness and that the emphasis on living a happy life should be placed on the agent to habitually act in a rational and virtuous manner.